User talk:Jarandhel/Archives/2011/December

Your userpage

Please read Wikipedia:User pages (ctrl+f for "link to" and "promo"), and remove the links from your userpage, especially the etsy one and so. If you want you can keep facebook and/or a journal. If I don't hear back from you, I'm going to remove them myself. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 07:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Please relax a bit. There's no need to threaten to edit my userpage yourself. I've reviewed the User Pages guideline and I will be removing most of the links I have on my userpage, though you're the first and only person who has complained about them in the six years I've been editing Wikipedia (admittedly I have recently added some new ones). I'll be leaving the link to my homepage, however, not to my journal or facebook since the User Pages guideline specifically states "You are also welcome to include a simple link to your personal home page, although you should not surround it with any promotional language." Just FYI, if you believe that a User Page does not meet the guidelines the standard practice is to comment to their talk page with {{subst:uw-userpage}}, not tell them you'll edit it yourself if they fail to reply. Such a response could easily scare off a new editor. Thank you.

--Jarandhel (talk) 07:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

You're obviously not new, and I try not to template the regulars. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 07:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I would hope you try not to threaten the regulars either. --Jarandhel (talk) 07:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Point

you parroting my edit summary + WP:POINT. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 07:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't making a point, I was following your lead, and making sure that Wikipedia's policies were being uniformly applied. If those sources on the otherkin article violated Wikipedia's external links policy, surely links to individual sites and communities for theistic satanism would also do so? One went to a satanic service brought to you by troll towelhead, and the second went to the Sinagogue of Satan. Are these unbiased sources on theistic satanism that meet the external links policy? --Jarandhel (talk) 07:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course you were making a point. You earlier demonstrated on my talk page that you're sure I have some sort of a personal interest in Theistic Satanism, and when I removed the links from the otherkin article you went straight to the TS article to remove links with the exact same edit summary. Read the WP:POINT article carefully, it describes exactly this kind of behavior.

I'm not questioning the content of your edit, I'm questioning your behavior. If you had a problem with the removal of the links, you can just discuss it on the talk page as usual. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 07:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:POINT specifically says: "However, just because someone is making a point does not mean that they are disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate it." If you're not questioning the content of my edit on the Theistic Satanism page, in what way do you feel that I am disrupting Wikipedia in making the point you believe I'm making? Do you feel that there's something about the Theistic Satanism article that makes those external links appropriate there, but not in the Otherkin article? If so, perhaps you'd like to take it to one or both of the talk pages to discuss it as usual? --Jarandhel (talk) 07:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Repeating: I do not have a problem with the actual content of your edit. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 07:55, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Jarandhel. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 09:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jereaphine. I've already replied there, but I wanted to thank you for this. I never actually knew that WP:Wikiquette_assistance existed. If I had, I would have made use of it during some of the previous edit wars regarding the Otherkin article. I thought RfC or mediation was the closest we had to this. Thanks for letting me know, if inadvertently. :) --Jarandhel (talk) 17:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Sinagogue of Satan

Sinagogue of Satan is mentioned in the article, the external link is not advertising I ask you to revert your edit or I take your action to mediation.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 15:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

See my response on the Theistic Satanism talk page. The links in question clearly violate Wikipedia policy in multiple respects, and should not be included. --Jarandhel (talk) 04:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Consensus, discussion, etc.

Hi, Jarandhel, I'm Qwyrixan, an admin here at Wikipedia. User:Jeraphine Gryphon asked me to take a look at the discussion and editing on Otherkin (I think we've interacted before, thought to be honest I don't remember in what context). I just wanted to let you know that if you have a discussion on a talk page, and that discussion stops, that doesn't mean you can go ahead and make the change that others have objected to. While Wikipedia is not a democracy, and thus not subject to simple majority rule, on many pages with limited editorship, it often works out that way in practice. With 2 editors supporting a particular position, and you opposed (especially when the others are citing relevant policy), you generally have to accept their decision, in the short term. However, Wikipedia has a whole host of processes whereby you can get more input on subjects from uninvolved editors, processes which we collectively call dispute resolution. In this case, the two things that are probably most appropriate are to either post a new discussion at the neutality noticeboard, if your main concern is that the inclusion of that link is non-neutral, or, if it's more general than that, start a Request for Comment on Talk:Otherkin, which will hopefully bring uninvolved editors to that page. If you need help setting up either of those, I'm happy to be of service. You may want to take a look at the archived discussions for Otherkin, since JG mentioned the topic has been discussed before. One thing I can say is that even if Jeraphine does oversee some page on ED, that doesn't rise to the level of COI as Wikipedia defines it, since (I assume) she has no financial/familial interest in that issue.

Like I said, I'm happy to help you get DR started. I have no interest in this particular point...heck, not only do I not have an opinion on this link, I hadn't even heard of otherkin or clinical lycanthropy until just a few minutes ago. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Notes: the bit about ED was about the other editor, Equivamp, not me. Also Jarandhel is probably more familiar with the past discussions than I am, since they've been involved with article since 2005 or so. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 13:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, off the top of my head I don't recall interacting with anyone with your username in the past. It's difficult to resolve an issue based on consensus when the other editors involved in the dispute simply stop discussing it. I've made my position on the subject known, and I have cited relevant policies in the initial discussion on Jeraphine and Equivamp's talk pages. I've also been involved in the previous archived discussions of this issue on the Otherkin talk page, including numerous discussions with Dreamguy (the editor who actually made the edit putting the Clinical Lycanthropy link back into the article for the first time since it was removed back in 2008).

I 'll go ahead and start a discussion on the neutrality noticeboard, though I probably won't have the chance to write it up till later this evening. That also covers [WP:SYN] that violates neutrality, correct? (ie, an editor reading the accepted symptoms of a psychological illness and diagnosing a group with that illness in the article discussing the group?) --Jarandhel (talk) 22:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to let you both know, I have started a discussion on the neutrality noticeboard regarding this issue. The discussion is here. --Jarandhel (talk) 06:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

One further thing. Per WP:TALKDONTREVERT, "The obligation on talk pages is to explain why an addition/change/removal improves the article, and hence the encyclopedia. Other considerations are secondary. This obligation applies to all editors: consensus can be assumed if editors stop responding to talk page discussions, and editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions." --Jarandhel (talk) 09:54, 24 December 2011 (UTC)